Chapter 15: The Catholic League and Suppression of the Press Today

The Catholic League was founded in 1973 by Jesuit priest Virgil Blum. William Donohue assumed leadership in July 1993.[260pp1] Since then, the membership has grown from 27,000 to 200,000.[260pp2] According to Donohue, the League has “won the support of all of the U.S. Cardinals and many of the Bishops as well…We are here to defend the Church from the scurrilous assaults that have been mounted against it, and we definitely need the support of the hierarchy if we are to get the job done.”[260pp3] Thus it can be considered an arm of the Church. It supplements or replaces priest-controlled organizations of the past described by Blanshard and Seldes. The League apparently has a single mission: suppression of all mainstream criticism of the Roman Catholic Church.

According to Donohue, it is fortunate that, “the Catholic Church is there to provide a heady antidote to today’s mindless ideas of freedom.”[260pp4] He is a strong advocate of the Church’s positions on restriction of the freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution and condemned by popes for nearly two centuries, especially those regarding the press and speech. He informs us that: “the Catholic League is there to defend the Church against its adversaries.”[260pp4]

There are many recognizable principles governing the behavior of the League. One is revealed in a vicious 1994 attack against the New London newspaper, The Day, for an editorial critical of the Catholic Church: “What is truly ‘beyond understanding’ is not the Catholic Church’s position, it is the fact that a secular newspaper has the audacity to stick it’s nose in where it doesn’t belong. It is nobody’s business what the Catholic Church does.”[260pp5]

A second basic premise is the League’s commitment to canon 1369 of the Code of Canon Law: “A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.”[260pp6] Canon law is the law of the Catholic Church. All criticism of the pope or the Church is in violation of this law in one way or another. This chapter will make clear that the League follows this canon to the letter and demands that all others conform—or pay the price for their violation.

Another principle is aggressive action. Says Donohue, “I defy anyone to name a single organization that has more rabid members than the Catholic League. Our members are generous, loyal and extremely active. When we ask them to sign petitions, write to offending parties and the like, they respond with a vigor that is unparalleled…We aim to win. Obviously, we don’t win them all, but our record of victories is impressive.”[260pp7] To justify this stance, he identifies with Patrick Buchanan’s resistance to the “Culture War” against the Catholic Church: “We didn’t start this culture war against the Catholic Church, we simply want to stop it.”[260pp8]

Donohue also justifies the League’s aggressive behavior by claiming that it is culturally unacceptable for nonCatholics to criticize the Catholic Church. “Perhaps the most cogent remark of the day,” he asserts, “came from the former Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, who politely remarked that his mother always advised him not to speak ill of other religions. It is a lesson that apparently few have learned….Non-Catholics would do well to follow the advice of Ed Koch’s mom and just give it a rest. Their crankiness is wearing thin.”[260pp9] This cultural norm is widely accepted in America, to the enormous benefit of the Vatican. What role, one wonders, did the Catholic Church play in its adoption? Certainly, in the case of population growth control, its consequence has been catastrophic.

The Catholic League strongly discourages criticism of the Church, especially attacks by the press. Says Donohue, “It does no good complaining about Catholic bashing if all we do is wait until the other side strikes.”[260pp10] Prevention of such publications is of the essence. Yet Donohue is convinced that this is not censorship: “The press and the radio talk shows asked me if the Catholic League was engaging in censorship by responding the way we did. As always, I informed them that only the government has the power to censor anything.”[260pp11] This is patently untrue.

Another tenet enunciated by Donohue:

“I think it is a gross mistake to give elevation to fringe groups. Our basic rule of thumb is this: the more mainstream the source of anti-Catholicism, the more likely it is that the Catholic League will respond….The mainstream media, after all, have the credibility and influence that the fringe lacks, and they are therefore much more likely to do real damage.”[260pp12]

“When major universities, TV networks and government officials engage in Catholic-baiting, it is a far more dangerous situation than the venom that emanates from certifiably fringe organizations.”[260pp13]

“When an establishment newspaper such as the Sun-Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale] offends, it cannot be ignored.”[260pp14]

Donohue goes on to explain the Sun-Sentinel example. On February 9, 1995, it ran an ad, paid for by a Seventh Day Adventist group, which claimed that the Catholic Church is seeking to create a New World Order to take command of the world and that the Pope and the Catholic Church were in a league with Satan.

Accordingly, the Catholic League contacted the radio and television stations in the area, the opposition newspaper, and the nation’s major media outlets registering its outrage and its demands. We demanded nothing less than ‘an apology to Catholics and a pledge that no such ads will ever be accepted again.’ We added that ‘If this is not forthcoming, the Catholic League will launch a public ad campaign on its own, one that will directly target the Sun-Sentinel.’

“What exactly did we have in mind? We were prepared to take out ads in the opposition newspaper, registering our charge of anti-Catholic bigotry. We were prepared to pay for radio spots making our charge. We were prepared to buy billboard space along the majority arteries surrounding the Fort Lauderdale community. Why not? After all, …we are in a position to make such threats….This is the way it works: if the source of bigotry wants to deal with lousy publicity, it can elect to do so. Or it can come to its senses and knock it off. In the event the anti-Catholic bigots want to bite the bullet and stay the course, we’ll do everything we can within the law to make sure that they pay a very high price for doing so.”[260pp15] It goes without saying that anyone critical of the Vatican, or the hierarchy, or the Roman Catholic Church is, by definition, an anti-Catholic bigot—including Catholics themselves.

One final element makes clear the objective of the Catholic League—protection of the papacy against all criticism. Writes Donohue, “It is the conviction of the Catholic League that an attack on the Church is an attack on Catholics.”[260pp16] He offers no rationale to support this theory. Obviously, millions of liberal American Catholics would disagree outright, for it is they who have been attacking the Church.

Donohue continues,

Throughout American history, the job of combating anti-Catholicism fell to the clergy, and especially to the Archbishops. But times have changed….The type of anti-Catholicism that exists in American society today is fundamentally different from the genre that marked this country’s history from the outset. From colonial times to the election of John F. Kennedy as President of the United States, anti-Catholicism was vented against both individual Catholics and against the Catholic Church itself. But over the past 30 years, it has become evident that most of the Catholic-bashing centers on the institution of the Church…[260pp17]

The hierarchy cannot be effective against criticism of the institution because they are the institution. Thus, the hierarchy has had to call on the laity to protect the institution in this way. In 1971, the League’s founder pointed out, “If a group is to be politically effective, issues rather than institutions must be at stake.”[260pp18] In other words, the laity, if left to their own devices, will not defend the institution but they will defend their interests as individuals. Hence, the League has adopted this principle and has convinced its members that “an attack on the Church is an attack on Catholics.” In this way, the institution is successfully using individual lay Catholics to shield it from all criticism.

The Church and Its Image

The Catholic Church in America has good reason to be intensely concerned about its image and any criticism. Donohue cites a 1995 study, “Taking America’s Pulse,” undertaken by the National Conference (formerly known as the National Conference of Christians and Jews). Despite the almost complete suppression of all criticism of the Catholic Church in America, a majority of non-Catholic Americans (55%) believe that Catholics “want to impose their own ideas of morality on the larger society.” The survey also found that 38% of non-Catholics believe that Catholics are “narrow-minded because they are too much controlled by their Church.”[260pp19] Obviously, there is a highly receptive audience in this country for any justified criticisms of the Catholic Church. If the floodgates ever opened, it is unlikely that the Church would be able to close them again. Only too well understood by the hierarchy, and the Catholic League, this perhaps explains their unmitigated intolerance for criticism.

Methods of the League

Donohue has cited many of the methods used by the League, including some we have already mentioned. “We specialize in public embarrassment of public figures who have earned our wrath and that is why we are able to win so many battles: no person or organization wants to be publicly embarrassed, and that is why we specialize in doing exactly that…”[260pp20] Elsewhere he writes, “The threat of a lawsuit is the only language that some people understand. The specter of public humiliation is another weapon that must be used. Petitions and boycotts are helpful. The use of the bully pulpit—via the airwaves—is a most effective strategy. Press conferences can be used to enlighten or, alternatively, to embarrass.”[260pp21] “Ads taken out in prominent national newspapers are quite effective.”[260pp22]

The Catholic League’s Op-Ed page advertisement which appeared in the April 10, 1995 issue of The New York Times attacking Disney for its release of the excellent film, “Priest,” is a good example. This attack will be described more fully later. But on the Op-Ed page the following advertisement appears: “We’re leading a nationwide charge against Disney, making use of every legal means available—from boycotts to stockholder revolts—all designed to send a clear and unmistakable message to Michael Eisner, chairman of Disney.”[260pp23] This is only one of many staged or threatened stockholder revolts led by the League.

But probably the most effective means of suppressing criticism of the Catholic Church through the press is a constant “in your face” attack of local newspapers. In a 1995 report on the Massachusetts Chapter of the Catholic League, it is noted that the president and the executive director had been on the attack, “appearing in the media more than 600 times” in the previous five years.[260pp24] In a single state, 600 times in five years! It is no wonder that newspapers in Massachusetts are very reluctant to print any criticism of the Catholic Church, no matter how justified, given this constant barrage of punishment.

Intimidation of the media leadership and of our government by the League is achieved through the wide distribution of frequent news releases, its monthly newsletter and an annual report. In an article on the publication of its 1994 report, Donohue writes, “The purpose of the report is to educate the public and influence decision-makers in government, education and the media….The report is being distributed to all members of Congress, the White House…and to prominent members of the media and education.”[260pp25] From an article regarding the 1995 annual report: “It has been sent to every Bishop and congressman in the nation, as well as to influential persons in the media and other sectors of society.”[260pp26] In a February 1995 letter to the membership, Donohue announced that the 1994 report will be distributed to the press, noting “there will be little excuse left for media ignorance of Catholic-bashing.”[260pp27] Individual attacks are often announced through widely distributed press releases which are bound to capture the attention of members of the press.

Success of the League

The Catholic League has been remarkably successful in achieving its goals. Donohue rightfully gloats: “One of the major reasons why people are giving [donations] is the success the Catholic League has had.”[260pp28] As noted earlier, membership grew from 27,000 to 200,000 in the first two years after Donohue took control. He continues, “We have had a string of victories and we have also had an unprecedented degree of media coverage. We don’t win every fight but our overall record is quite good. Our presence on radio and TV, combined with coverage in newspapers and magazines—both religious and secular—is excellent.”[260pp29] “We’ve been featured on the television program ‘Entertainment Tonight’ and received front page coverage from national newspapers including the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.”[260pp30] The number of apologies and promises it extracts from the nation’s newspapers, TV networks and stations and programs, radio stations, activist organizations, commercial establishments, educational institutions and governments is most impressive.

The suppression of all criticism of the Catholic Church and its hierarchy is the goal of the Catholic League. The visit of the pope to the U.S. in October 1995 was a major media event. Given all the gravely serious problems faced by the Church and the enormous amount of dissent by American Catholics, as well as the growing hostility from non-Catholics as a result of the Church’s interference in American policy making, one would expect wide coverage of these realities in the media during his visit. Instead, it was treated as a triumphant return.

The Catholic League believes that it played a major role in this great public relations success—and with good reason. In August 1994, it launched a campaign to intimidate the press in an astounding advance warning to media professionals preparing for the pope’s visit to New York in late October. A letter signed by Donohue announced a press conference to be held just prior to the pope’s visit that will present “10’s of thousands of petitions from active Catholics” that have been collected over the past year.[260pp31] The petition speaks for itself. What else but intimidation of the press is the intent of this campaign?

The November 1995 issue of the League’s journal, Catalyst, is headlined, “Media Treat Pope Fairly; Protesters Fail to Score.” Donohue writes, “By all accounts, the visit of Pope John Paul II to the United States was a smashing success. Media treatment of the papal visit was, with few exceptions, very fair. Protesters were few in number and without impact. From beginning to end, this papal visit proved to be the most triumphant of them all.”[260pp32] A month later he writes, “The relatively few cheap shots that were taken at the Pope by the media in October is testimony to a change in the culture.”[260pp33] And of course the desired “change in the culture” is the elimination of criticism of the pope and his hierarchy. The Catholic League is succeeding on a grand scale far beyond what all but a handful of Americans realize.

Intimidation Prevents Criticism

It is clear from Donohue’s own words that prevention of any criticism is the goal of the League and that intimidation is its means of achieving this end. In a fund-raising letter mailed in December of 1995, Donohue appeals for funds to hire more staff: “We could have done more….We could have tackled other issues, thereby adding to the number of people who will think twice before crossing Catholics again.”[260pp34] From the League’s 1995 Annual Report: “It is hoped that by …[attacking critics], potential offenders will think twice before launching their assaults on Roman Catholicism.”[260pp35] This statement also makes it clear that it is the protection of the institution that is the goal, not protection of individual Catholics.

It appears that the most aggressive and extensive attack in League history was one directed at Disney for its release of the movie, “Priest.” In an editorial, Donohue forthrightly says that the purpose of the intensive attack on Disney is the prevention of the production of such critical movies in the future: “Our sights were set on what might be coming down the road, not on what had already happened.”[260pp36]

The advice given by Ed Koch’s mother—do not speak ill of other religions—has been a national ethic for nearly all of this century. This ethic, inherent in our culture, has served to suppress nearly all criticism of the Catholic Church. As a result, until its political activities were unveiled with the implementation of the bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities in 1975, the Church had been relatively immune from mainstream criticism. Because this ethic has served the Catholic Church so well, the Church may very well have played a major role in its inculcation into our culture. With its political activity becoming increasingly evident, critics are more than ever convinced of the need for public criticism of the Catholic Church.

However, this ethic does not protect the Church from dissent within its confines which has been growing since Vatican Council II in the 1960s, and most remarkably in recent years. The American media, to avoid flying in the face of American culture by ignoring this dearly held belief, have occasionally provided a forum for this protest. The dissenters have been a significant source of criticism. The Catholic League has not overlooked this problem—indeed, it takes it very seriously. All criticism is targeted from whatever source, including members of the Church.

For example, on January 22, 1995, CBS’s “60 Minutes” broadcast a segment by Mike Wallace on the Catholic dissident group Call to Action. The Catholic hierarchy did agree to appear but dictated terms that were unacceptable to CBS. Then, according to Donohue, the Catholic League sent two letters to executive producer Barry Lando and issued the following press release on January 25:

The entire Call to Action segment was, from beginning to end, an exercise in intellectual dishonesty and journalistic malpractice. The decision to give high profile to the Catholic Church’s radical fringe was pure politics, and nothing short of outrageous….Allowing extremists an uncontested opportunity to rail against the Catholic Church distorts the sentiments of most Catholics and provides succor for bigots. There is a difference between reporting dissent, and promoting it….’60 Minutes’ made clear its preference, extending to the disaffected a platform that they have never earned within the Catholic community….This is propaganda at work, not journalism.[260pp37]

This press release, of course, was received across America as a powerful warning to others to steer clear of Catholic dissidents. The Catholic League then launched a national postcard mailing campaign directed at Lando personally: “…we are angered over the way you continue to present the Catholic Church….We are tired of having our Church viewed from the perspective of the disaffected.”[260pp38]

In another example, the League attacked the October 5, 1995 edition of “NBC Nightly News” with Tom Brokaw for providing a platform for Catholics for a Free Choice and Dignity. The League’s press release included the following:

The media do a great disservice to Catholics and non-Catholics alike when Catholics for a Free Choice and Dignity are presented as though they were genuine voices in the Catholic community. The effect of such misrepresentation is to promote dissent rather than to record it. As such, it is irresponsible for the media to allow itself to become willing accomplices to public deception.[260pp39]

The continuous intimidation is bound to have its desired effect. The April 22, 1996 issue of theNew Republic magazine criticizes the League’s annual report as indicative of the League’s “paranoia.”[260pp40] The New Republic completely misses the point. One need only look at the language used in the League’s attacks. It is not defense. It is intimidating language. The report is an offensive weapon used to silence critics of the Catholic Church.

Specific Examples of the League’s Intimidation

The Catholic League focuses it attention on five types of institutions: media, activist organizations, commercial establishments, educational institutions and governments.[260pp41] Donohue attributes the League’s success, in part, to its ability to stay focused.[260pp42] The League’s 1994 and 1995 annual reports alone offer 350 examples of League attacks. The numerous stunning examples from which to choose make selection for presentation difficult. These were all reported during the period from July 1994 to June 1996.

The Media

Newsday—On June 1st and June 3, 1994, the Long Island daily, Newsday, published Bob Marlette cartoons which, according to the Catholic League, “raised pope bashing to a new level.”[260pp43] An apology from Newsday published in the form of a “Memo to Readers” failed to satisfy the Catholic League and a petition was distributed to Long Island pastors. On July 15, Donohue met with Newsday publisher Anthony Marro to discuss the paper’s coverage of Catholics. At the meeting, he presented 76 petitions signed by Long Island pastors expressing their concern for the way Catholics have been portrayed by the newspaper.[260pp44] This was not enough. On August 25, 1994, Donohue met with the editorial board ofNewsday on the newspaper’s coverage of Catholics. Donohue complained that the absence of practicing Catholics on the editorial board resulted in an insensitivity toward Catholics.[260pp45]

Philadelphia Inquirer—An article in the September 1994 issue of the League’s journal is headlined, “Cardinal Bevilacqua Scores Philadelphia Inquirer for Church Coverage, Declines Interview”. The Inquirer had requested an interview for a major story on the Archdiocese. The Cardinal refused: “I have declined your request for an interview due to your unfair and unbalanced coverage of the Archdiocese in the last year….This view is based on a review of Inquirer articles from May 1993 to May 1994. This review included 23 articles written about the Catholic Church. Of these 23 articles, eighteen were considered to be unfair and unbalanced. The unfairness and imbalance occurred in five areas including the selection of negative topics, a disregard for positive news, the use of unqualified experts, the use of negative language and a consistent omission of factual information…It is particularly frustrating to continue to read negative characterizations of the Roman Catholic Church with no regard for our role as the largest provider of social services in Southeastern Pennsylvania and our role as the most visible religious organization in the poorest areas of our city.”[260pp46] The Cardinal makes clear that he feels he should be permitted to dictate what is written about his church to the letter, revealing an arrogance that could never coexist with a free press. Furthermore, that he would bring up the provision of social services by the Church, fully knowing that these services the Church provides are almost entirely funded by local, state and federal tax monies, is deceptive.

Associated Press—On March 10, 1995, the Associated Press (AP), in a story on a court ruling upholding a law barring doctors from engaging in assisted suicide, disclosed that the federal appeals court judge was a Catholic. (The judge’s ruling was in line with his pope’s teaching on this matter.) Donohue took great offense to the AP’s identification of this judge as a Catholic and sent a letter to AP executives asking for a copy of the AP policy on the matter. The League also sent a related press release to other news outlets to inform them of this offense. Darrell Christian, AP’s Managing Editor wrote an apology. “The League is satisfied with AP’s quick response,” writes Donohue in the League’s Journal, “and expects that it will not have to call attention to such errors in the future.” Donohue’s message to the American press was loud and clear. It is not permissible for the press to identify public servants as Catholics when they uphold Catholic teachings in their public decision-making. If so, the League will come after them.[260pp47]

Disney—The May 1995 issue of Catalyst reports in an article, “Catholic League calls for a Boycott of Disney:” “The movie ‘Priest,’ produced by the BBC and released by Miramax, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company, provoked the Catholic League to lead a storm of protest against the film and Disney. The movie is arguably the most anti-Catholic movie ever made.”[260pp48] This attack on Disney represents the single greatest assault in the League’s history. In an editorial, Donohue writes: “In addition to joining a boycott of everything that has the Disney label on it, we are asking everyone to sell their Disney stock. It would also send a message if everyone mailed Disney chairman Michael Eisner some old Disney toys or videos. If every Catholic League member sent even one box to Mr. Eisner, it would make an indelible impression on him.”[260pp49]

The petition against Disney reads, “We, the undersigned, have a message to Disney: you bit off more than you can chew when you offended Catholics with the release of ‘Priest.’…We hope that everyone at Disney thinks twice before offending Catholics again. Sadly, appeals to your goodwill mean nothing anymore. That is why we are hitting you in the pocketbook….The Catholic League has already tarnished your image and we have pledged to blacken it a little more.”[260pp50]

The League placed an Op-Ed page advertisement in the April 10, 1995 issue of The New York Times titled “What’s Happening to Disney?” It includes the statement: “So what is the Catholic League doing about this? We are leading a nationwide charge against Disney, making use of every legal means available—from boycotts to stockholder revolts—all designed to send a clear and unmistakable message to Michael Eisner, chairman of Disney.”[260pp51]

But the attack did not end there. On May 2, 1995, a Catholic League member, a stockholder, asked shareholders to ratify at the November meeting of the Walt Disney Company a resolution that calls for the establishment of a religious advisory committee to insure that Disney does not produce another movie like this one.[260pp52] On April 29, the League picketed Disney’s largest retail outlet in New England. A press release read: “The Catholic League intends to make the American public aware of Disney’s contemptuous disregard of the sensibilities of 59 million Catholic Americans. It is Disney that is ultimately responsible for this travesty and it is Disney that will remain the focus of our protests.”[260pp53]

In the July-August 1995 issue of Catalyst, an article, “Disney Protests Continue,” reports that the League had asked the four U.S. Senators who owned Disney stock to sell it: “Mrs. Dole announced on June 2 that she was selling more than $15,000 worth of Disney stock.” It reports that the League picketed the Dedham Community Theater in Dedham, Massachusetts, over the decision of the theater owner to show the anti-Catholic movie “Priest.” The article also reports that numerous dioceses had sold their Disney stock and that “after nine weeks in theaters, the Hollywood Reporter’s Boxoffice ranked ‘Priest’ 34th out of the top 35 movies nationwide.”[260pp54] The January-February 1996 issue reported that upwards of 100,000 petitions were sent to Disney: “…because the movie was a flop at the box office, we do not expect to be greeted with Priest II anytime soon.”[260pp55]

The League’s campaign was not just directed to Disney but to the entire film industry and to the media in general. The message: if you place the Catholic Church in a negative light, you are going to pay.

Jane Pauley—In the June 13, 1995 airing of NBC’s “Dateline ,” Jane Pauley interviewed Scott O’Grady, the U.S. pilot who was rescued in Bosnia. Pauley commented “A devout Roman Catholic, O’Grady made his confirmation at age thirteen, and unlike many of his peers never left the Church.” The Catholic League was angered by this comment and Donohue wrote to Bob Wright, CEO of NBC, demanding that Pauley be fired immediately for this terrible offense. For maximum effect, Donohue released a statement explaining his actions to the press to insure that all got the message.[260pp56]

Bill Press—On July 16, 1995, KFI Radio [Los Angeles] talk show host Bill Press, a Roman Catholic, was critical of the pope and the Catholic Church. According to the September 1995 issue of the League’s Catalyst, “The Catholic League issued the following statement to the press on this matter: ‘The issue here is not simply the vile comments of Bill Press. The issue is the willingness of a respected radio station to keep him on payroll….The Catholic League does not want equal time to respond to Press, rather it wants him fired.’”[260pp57] By distributing this press release, the League was sending a message to everyone in the press—if you are critical of the pope or the Catholic Church, we are coming after you and your employer.

Liz Langley and the Orlando Weekly—Liz Langley wrote a light article about communion wafers in the August 10-16, 1995 edition. The League took great offense and issued a statement to the press that included the following: “The Langley piece is one of the most anti-Catholic articles to have appeared in some time….Accordingly, I will now mobilize a public relations offensive against the newspaper, using every tactic this side of the law to discredit the paper.”[260pp58] Donohue’s press release may have been meant to intimidate other reporters. Nearly a year after the incident, I talked with Editor Jeff Truesdell. Nothing ever came of the League’s threats. Of course, no one ever reported this to the thousands of reporters who read the press release from Donohue.

Fox-TV—In September 1995, Mother Teresa was used to make a comedic point in a promotional spot for the Fox-TV program, The Preston Episodes. The Catholic League complained to the Los Angeles Office of Fox and “an apology was extended and a pledge not to run the offensive spot again was made.”[260pp59]

Bravo Network-“Windows”—A program which aired on September 24, 1995 on the cable network Bravo, featured a dance routine involving a priest dealing with temptation from a nun. “The Catholic League registered its outrage to Bravo, the ‘Windows’ producer Thomas Grimm, and Texaco Performing Arts Showcase, which sponsored the program.”[260pp60] In December the League reported that Texaco had apologized for sponsoring this segment. Texaco also stated to Dr. Donohue that henceforth there would be a “screening procedure for the Texaco Performing Arts Showcase.”[260pp61]

New Britain Herald—Connecticut’s New Britain Herald published a syndicated cartoon which shows the three Magi going to visit the Baby Jesus. One of the shepherds says, “Wait…aren’t we just encouraging these teen-age pregnancies?” League members complained to the newspaper that this was anti-Catholic bigotry. The newspaper issued an apology on its editorial page.[260pp62]

Ann Landers—In an interview with Christopher Buckly in the December 4, 1995 edition of theNew Yorker, columnist Ann Landers criticized Pope John Paul II. “After first making a favorable comment about the Pope, Landers remarked, ‘Of course, he’s a Polack. They’re very antiwomen.’ …Landers later apologized for the crack about the Pope…The Catholic League sent its own comments to the New Yorker and further disseminated its views via a news release and radio interviews….(T)he Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has decided to drop Landers’ column beginning in 1996.”[260pp63]

ABC’s “The Naked Truth”—The League strongly attacked the January 10 edition of the ABC show “The Naked Truth.” The League’s letter to ABC included this threat: “We will contact the sponsors of the program and will alert our members to take action against them. Knowing our members, they won’t hesitate to do so.” This report, which appears in the March 1996 issue of Catalyst, listed the names, addresses and phone numbers of the eight sponsors of that show.[260pp64]

“Dave, Shelly & Chainsaw”-San Diego radio program—The April 1996 edition of Catalystreports on an attempt by the League’s San Diego Chapter to have the “Lash Wednesday” segment of the Dave, Shelly & Chainsaw program discontinued. The local chapter charged that the “humor” was “unacceptable” and the segment must be discontinued. But it failed. At that point the national office of the Catholic League got involved and placed an ad in the San Diego Union-Tribune “calling attention to this outrage.” This prompted media requests for interviews with the chapter president who appeared live on KGTV, the ABC affiliate. The tenor of this interview was “so controversial” that the station was pressured to invite him back a second time. “This time the television reporters were much more respectful.” The League asked its members nationwide to contact the radio station General Manager and the President of PAR Broadcasting Company to demand that this segment be discontinued, providing his address, phone and fax numbers.[260pp65]

PBS’ Frontline—On February 6, 1996, PBS aired a program called, “Murder on ‘Abortion Row’”. The two hour special was a serious look at the life of John Salvi, the person who killed two women and wounded five others working at an abortion clinic in 1994. Salvi is a devout Catholic and had planned to become a Catholic priest. The Catholic League was given an opportunity to preview the program. It immediately released a statement to the press attacking the documentary which began, “The Frontline program, “Murder on ‘Abortion Row,’” is nothing more than a front for Planned Parenthood and an irresponsible propaganda piece against Catholicism.”[260pp66]

Newsday—On March 12, 1996, the Long Island newspaper, Newsday, ran a headline which read, “Ex-Alter Boy on Trial.” The League protested. Donohue called the paper’s editor: “The content and tone of his remarks assured Donohue that this would not happen again.”[260pp67] Newsday subsequently published a League letter-to-the-editor which was very critical of the newspaper.

HBO—On May 6, 1996, Home Box Office aired “Priestly Sins: Sex and the Catholic Church.” The one hour special focused on the issue of sexual abuse in the priesthood. The League issued a lengthy news release which sharply attacked HBO: “The film is classic propaganda…HBO is not the first to float the idea that a ‘code of secrecy’ keeps the Church from revealing the truth about clergy sexual abuse: that honor extends to the Nazis and others. The Catholic League will call on all Catholics to boycott HBO…”[260pp68]

Sony—The June 1996 issue of Catalyst reported on the Sony movie, “The Last Supper”: “The movie, while not offensive to Catholics, nonetheless offended Catholics with its promotional material. The League…wrote a letter of protest to Sony Picture Releasing President, Jeffrey Blake. The response from Sony was decisive: ‘We have taken the unusual step of modifying our marketing campaign’….The League is satisfied with this modification.”[260pp69]

AP—On March 31, 1996, the Associated Press ran a story about a suburban Chicago man suspected of assassinating a Philadelphia policeman a quarter-century ago. The story, which was distributed to newspapers all over the country, mentioned that the accused was “23, a Catholic school-educated telephone repairman, when the shooting occurred.” The League sent a letter of protest to the president of AP and urged all of its members to do the same, providing his name and address to them.[260pp70]

QVC Shopping Network—Continental Cablevision in New England had conducted a survey of 32,000 subscribers and found that viewers preferred to drop the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), the Catholic cable network, in favor of the QVC Shopping Network. The New England Chapter of the Catholic League sharply opposed this change and Continental was muscled into continuing programming of EWTM.[260pp71]

Commercial establishments

Barneys New York—On December 9, 1994, the League successfully pressured Barneys of New York, an upscale clothing store, into removing an “offensive” nativity scene from its storefront window on Madison Avenue and 61st Street. Donohue informed Barneys that it had about four hours to contact the League, otherwise the media would be contacted. It didn’t take long before Simon Doonan, a senior vice president, called Donohue and extended an apology. However, Doonan flatly declined to do anything about the exhibit. Donohue then released a statement to the media that included the following comments: “Barneys New York and Christie’s have cooperated in promoting an insulting anti-Christian exhibit….Plainly put, this means that Barneys will respect the right of artists to show disrespect for the rights of Catholics. The Catholic League will disseminate this news to as wide an audience as possible. We do not accept Mr. Doonan’s apology: apologies unaccompanied by corrective action do not assuage.”[260pp72]

Catalyst went on to report: “Within hours of releasing this statement, the television cameras were in Dr. Donohue’s office. Just about every radio and television station in New York commented on the Barney exhibit….Barneys pulled the display from the window…giving the work back to the artist….In response to all of this, Barneys took out full page ads in The New York Times, New York Post and New York Daily News, apologizing for what had happened. The ads, together with the boycotts that were instituted, wound up costing Barneys hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost sales.”[260pp72] Now that’s success!

Hard Rock Casino and Hotel—The December 1995 issue of Catalyst reports: “When the Hard Rock Casino and Hotel opened last March in Las Vegas, it featured a restored carved gothic altar in one of its cocktail bars….The offensive use of the altar has been a source of criticism by many area Catholics.” The local bishop complained to the owner, Peter Morton, who said it would be removed. After seven months of inaction, the Catholic League got involved. The League outlined its strategy to the press: “…the time has now come to put public pressure on Mr. Morton. The Catholic League will contact the media in Las Vegas about this incident, and will alert the national media to it as well. We will also take out ads in the local newspapers, as well as the diocesan newspaper, requesting Catholics not to patronize the Hard Rock Casino and Hotel and to organize demonstrations in front of the establishment. We will also contact local Catholic organizations to organize phone trees and deliver their message straight to Mr. Morton. If more pressure is needed, we will bring it to bear, including a national boycott of all Hard Rock Cafes.”[260pp73]

The Catholic League followed through on its promise by taking out three ads in area newspapers.[260pp74] Hard Rock quickly responded saying it would remove the altar on November 30. The report ended, “The Catholic League will announce its next move once it finds out what happens on November 30.[260pp75]

An article in its January/February 1996 issue: “Victory is Always Sweet: Hard Rock Hotel Pulls Altar” reads: “After responding to pressure brought by the Catholic League, the Hard Rock Hotel…withdrew an offensive altar from its bar…By giving the incident publicity, both nationally as well as locally, the Catholic League was able to secure the support of many influential Catholics, some of whom put pressure on Hard Rock….It cost Hard Rock approximately a quarter million dollars to remove the altar… we won.”[260pp76]

Education

William Paterson College—On July 5, 1994, Professor Vernon McClean, an instructor in the African-American and Caribbean studies department at William Paterson College at Wayne, New Jersey, opened the first session of his summer class, “Racism and Sexism in a Changing America,” by saying the pope is a racist. The League was contacted and it sent representatives to the college. “No one in any office would speak with us. They took great umbrage at our inquiry and were totally uncooperative. We received the same treatment from three different offices—we were either dismissed or treated as though we had no right to be questioning the incident. Following this lack of cooperation and response from the college, we issued a press release demanding an apology from the college and disciplinary action against Professor McLean. The New Jersey papers gave the issue thorough coverage and the New York radio and television media also took note.”[260pp77]

After the college completed its investigation, it made a public statement that “the College is satisfied that the matter has been resolved fully and completely.” The League, however was not satisfied. “Accordingly, the Catholic League called upon state officials to conduct a formal hearing on the campus of William Paterson College; Governor Christie Whitman, senior higher education officials and area legislators were contacted….But thus far she (Governor Whitman) has been mute….The Catholic League will not be satisfied until justice has been done. Our goal is not to simply chastise one college professor….We’re taking the long view on this one and it would behoove people like President Speert (Paterson College president) to do likewise.”[260pp77]

University of Michigan—The University of Michigan student newspaper, The Michigan Daily, ran a cartoon that mocked Newt Gingrich’s promotion of Boys Town and also related to the pedophilia problem in the Catholic priesthood. Donohue wrote a threatening letter to Dr. James Duderstadt, President of the University of Michigan: “Enclosed is a copy of a cartoon that was run in The Michigan Daily….Please be advised that as president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, I am prepared to do what is necessary to rid your campus of the bigotry it presently entertains.”[260pp78]

The very next issue of Catalyst reads: “We are happy to report that an apology from the cartoonist and a conciliatory letter from Dr. Duderstadt have brought this issue to a close.”[260pp79]

Activist Organizations

The Population Institute—In a May 1995 fund-raising letter, Werner Fornos, president of The Population Institute, wrote the following: “The Vatican continues to undermine the advancements we’ve made in Cairo on issues of pregnancy prevention. The anti-contraceptive gestapo has vowed to double the number of its delegation (to the U.N.’s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing) to 28 and to turn once more to weaken the cause of reproductive rights.” The July-August, 1995 issue of Catalyst describes the League’s response in an article, “Nazi Slur of Vatican Implicates Congressmen.”[260pp80]

In a news release, the Catholic League issued the following remarks: “The Population Institute proves once again that some of the anti-natalist forces are unquestionably anti-Catholic. Not content, or able, to debate the issues on their merits, these activists seek to defame the Holy See and thereby discredit its influence. Members of The Population Institute who share its politics, but not its bigotry, should make a clear and decisive break with the organization…. Accordingly, the Catholic League calls upon the following advisors to The Population Institute to resign immediately: Sen. Paul Simon, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Rep. Jim Leach, Rep. Robert Torricelli and Rep. Sam Gejdenson. Not to resign would be to give tacit support to anti-Catholicism…The Catholic League [also] wrote to each Congressman involved in this scandal.”[260pp80]

The September 1995 issue of Catalyst reports: “Senator Daniel K. Inouye complied with the League’s request and resigned from the Population Institute. Senator Barbara Boxer of California put The Population Institute on notice, warning that any future examples of ‘inappropriate’ and ‘offensive’ fundraising letters would lead her ‘to reconsider’ her position with the organization. Congressman Robert Torricelli of New Jersey…warned The Population Institute to be more careful in how it phrases its letters.”[260pp81]

Anti-Defamation League—On December 1, 1995, the ADL notified the publisher, Hippocrene Books that it was granting a prestigious literary award to Richard Lukas for his book, Did the Children Cry? Hitler’s War Against Jewish and Polish Children. Lukas was to receive the literary award, plus a prize of $1,000 on January 23, 1996 at the ADL’s headquarters in New York. On January 10, the ADL’s Mark Edelman, wrote to the publisher stating that a mistake had been made; that subsequent review led to a decision to reverse the initial judgment. The May 1996 issue of Catalyst reports, “When the Catholic League learned of what had happened, it was incensed.” Donohue wrote a letter to Edelman: “For the record, I would like to know exactly why the book was selected for an award in the first place. Surely there are records of this evaluation. And I would also like to know why those reasons were found unpersuasive—and by whom—at a later date.”

The report continues: “The Catholic League…did not receive a response from the ADL until the matter was favorably resolved on March 18. But the good news did not come until considerable pressure had been brought to bear. Before the ADL reversed its decision not to give the award, the attorney for author Lukas had already warned the ADL that it would be sued. When the ADL made its announcement to reinstate the award to Lukas, it noted that it still had several problems with the book. The ADL said that ‘we believe the book underestimates the extent of Polish anti-Semitism before and after World War II. We believe also that, while there were heroic efforts of some Poles during this time, the book appears to vastly overestimate the number of Poles who were engaged in such courageous actions. Finally, the ADL believes the book presents a sanitized picture of Polish involvement with Jews during the War and overlooks authoritative points of view of many historians, including Polish historians.’ Though justice prevailed in the end, this marks a sad chapter in the ADL’s history….We hope that the ADL has learned an important lesson and that such ‘mistakes’ will be avoided in the future.”[260pp82]

Government

The Clinton Administration—The October 1994 Catalyst headline reads “League Assails Clinton Administration for Bigotry.” This article reports: “In an unprecedented move, the Catholic League assailed the administration of a standing president for anti-Catholic bigotry. From the time President Clinton took office, it has become increasingly evident that his administration is insensitive at best, and downright hostile at worst, to Catholic interests. But the final straw occurred during the third weekend in August. Faith Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the State Department, charged that the Vatican’s disagreement over the Cairo conference on population and development ‘has to do with the fact that the conference is really calling for girls’ education and improving the status of women.’ That statement was so outrageous that one of our members…wrote a strong letter registering her concerns to President Clinton…and [this letter] was published as a Catholic League open letter to the President in the August 29th edition of The New York Times.”[260pp83]

This open letter, published as a half-page advertisement sponsored by the Catholic League, ran in all editions of The New York Times on August 29, 1994. It viciously attacks Faith Mitchell and requests President Clinton to retract and apologize for her statement.[260pp84]

In an article published in this issue, Donohue writes: “The anti-Catholic bigots in the Clinton administration got so exercised during the Cairo conference that Leon Panetta [who is Catholic], the White House Chief of Staff, acknowledged that there was a problem with Catholic-bashing and vowed to discipline anyone who continued to chide the Vatican.”[260pp85] Apparently, any criticism of the Vatican, no matter how just, is off limits.

Dr. Joycelyn Elders—In an editorial in the January-February issue of Catalyst, “We’ve Only Just Begun,” Donohue writes, “We have rolled into 1995 with a string of victories. Dr. Elders is gone…Dr. Joycelyn Elders is one for the books. The very first news release I issued when I took over as president of the Catholic League in July 1993 was in opposition to the nomination of Dr. Elders as Surgeon General…Through the month of August, we pressed hard to stop her nomination: we held a press conference at the National Press Club and wrote to all the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but we ultimately fell short of our objective. What we did not do, however, was give up. We continued to criticize Dr. Elders whenever she made an irresponsible statement…”[260pp86]

An article in the same issue, “Elder’s Exit Applauded,” reads: “The Catholic League is delighted to see that one of the most outspoken anti-Catholic bigots in the Clinton administration has been axed. Joycelyn Elders was nominated to the office of Surgeon General by President Clinton in 1993 and confirmed later by the Senate. The Catholic League opposed her nomination and confirmation from the beginning. Her anti-Catholic statements…should have alone disqualified her from a position of national influence and authority…The Catholic League continued to speak out against her during her tenure as Surgeon General.”[260pp87]

This is but a very small sample of the attacks by the League over this two year period. It is unfortunate that space limits the number. These examples are presented almost entirely in the League’s own words. As one surveys its material, it becomes evident that all criticism of the Church or anything that places the Church in a negative light is deemed anti-Catholic, despicable and impermissible. The Church is simply above all criticism. The Catholic League obviously rejects America because it rejects what America stands for, including the freedoms of speech, expression and the press. This stand taken by the Catholic League is consistent with nearly two centuries of Catholic teaching on these matters and we should expect nothing different.

Intimidation, such as has been described in this chapter, by Catholic institutions over the past hundred years, has resulted in a populace woefully ignorant of the threat to American democracy and security posed by the Church. This intimidation has made it possible for the Church to go unchallenged.

How can Americans publicly discuss the obvious conflict between American national security-survival interests and Papal security-survival interests in this environment that the Catholic League now so effectively fosters? Obviously, it is not possible. Not only were the recommendations of the Rockefeller Commission and the NSSM 200 report never implemented, they were never publicly debated. Few Americans are even aware of NSSM 200 or this conflict in security interests. Intimidation by Catholic institutions has completely suppressed appropriate investigation of this conflict. Indeed, this intimidation has shut off the flow of the kinds of facts that resulted in these recommendations—facts of which all Americans should be fully aware. Without this vital information and discussion in a public forum, there can be no democratic solution to this conflict between the interests of the nation and of the Catholic Church—a dilemma well understood by the hierarchy.

In 1990, the Times Mirror Company, owner of a number of large U.S. newspapers, conducted a national poll, “The People, Press and Politics.” This poll asked interviewees questions that would permit the measure of “favorability.” Eleven political institutions were compared. The Catholic Church ranked number one with an 89 percent favorability rating, handily beating the Supreme Court, Congress and the U.S. military. Evangelical Christians were given a 53 percent rating. Among famous world leaders, including living U.S. Presidents, the pope ranked number one with a favorability rating of 88 percent. Only Vaclav Havel came within 10 points of the pope.

This is either an amazing phenomenon or an impressive accomplishment by the bishops, or both. The Catholic Church in America is in serious decline. As noted earlier, half of all American priests now quit the priesthood before age 60. The average age of nuns in the U.S. is 65 years and only 3 percent are below age 40. Nearly one-third of the Catholic schools and one-fourth of the Catholic hospitals have closed in the past 30 years. Contributions by members have fallen by half in the same period, with Catholics having the lowest contribution rate of any of the major churches. Were it not for the billions of dollars received by the Church in federal, state and local tax funds, the income from corporate gifts made as a result of Catholic influence within public and private corporations, and as a result of influence within major private foundations, the Church could not possibly survive in its current form.

As noted, millions of Catholics have left the Church and become Protestants. The September 1995 New York Times/CBS News Poll revealed that 28 percent of those who had been raised as Catholics no longer considered themselves Catholic. In other words, 17 million individuals whom the bishops claim as Catholics have left the Church. In November 1979, about half of all Americans surveyed regarded the pope as a universal moral leader. By 1995, according to this survey, the proportion had fallen to 31 percent, a 40 percent drop. A 1994 Los Angeles Timessurvey found that 43 percent of priests and 51 percent of nuns say that things in the Church are not so good. According to a study conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and reported in USA Today on January 29, 1993, Catholics account for 31 percent of all abortions in the U.S. but are only 22 percent of the U.S. population. A September 1995 Washington Post/ABC News Poll queried: Is the Roman Catholic Church in touch with the views of Catholics in America today, or out of touch? Nearly 60 percent of both Catholics and non-Catholics responded, “out of touch.” To the question, “Do you think someone who is using birth control methods other than the rhythm method can still be a good Catholic?,” Ninety-three percent of Catholics said yes. To the question, “Do you think someone who gets divorced and marries someone else without Church approval can still be a good Catholic,?” 85 percent said yes. To the question, “Do you think a woman who has an abortion for reasons other than her life being in danger can still be a good Catholic?,” 69 percent said yes. The Catholic Church in the U.S. can only be described as an institution in serious decline.

How can the Church and the pope have such high favorability ratings under these circumstances? This is an important question for all Americans and the American political process. The answers will tell how the Rockefeller Commission recommendations and the NSSM 200 recommendations, and every major initiative taken thus far to control U.S. and world population growth have been killed by the Church without Americans being aware of it. We will return to this question in the next chapter.

The bishops have been permitted to make the rules on how they are reported on. This has been accomplished by using many different tools and devices and only a few will be discussed here. A 1991 study conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs and published by the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a study conducted by Catholics for use by Catholic activists, found that in spite of the fact that the Catholic Church is in precipitous decline and that half of its priest and nuns said that things in the Church are not so good, “the ‘Church hierarchy’ is cited more than 50 times as often as ‘identified Church dissidents’!” Given the state of the Church one would expect the opposite to be true. The dissenters obviously have something to talk about, but press reporting on dissension and dissenters has been successfully discouraged by the Church leadership. Given the enormous potential for dissenting opinion, the bishops’ accomplishment in suppressing media coverage of this opinion is truly impressive. A reasonable question is: what other information is the Church successfully suppressing?

There isn’t a pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church spews Bill Donohue, the Defender of the Pedophiles of the Roman Catholic Church.

As mentioned in Chapter 11, the news outlets that placed the Church in a negative light were virtually all snuffed out or muzzled earlier in this century by the Knights of Columbus; this institution continues to take great pride in its early successes. Its efforts in recent years and the efforts of other Catholic institutions, such as the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, to suppress information that places the Church in a bad light have been mostly successful (the issue of child molestation being the only significant exception but even on this issue they do what they can).

Any time a report appears in the press placing the Church in a bad light, almost without exception there is an immediate demand for an apology and retraction made to the reporter, editor and publisher by these Catholic thought police. Written responses and demands for publication are immediately forthcoming. These responses are usually published and it is amazing how many apologies are made and published. There are scores of examples each year and they can be found in the publications of these thought police. They eagerly share their successes with their members. But when a negative report appears in one newspaper or magazine it rarely appears in another, regardless of its newsworthiness—Carl Bernstein’sTIME magazine article is a good example.

Economic retribution as a tool to suppress criticism was used more commonly in the last century and earlier in this century than today because it is now largely unnecessary. The long history of its use and the success enjoyed with it makes the mere threat of its use highly effective.

Perhaps far more important than the outright intimidation practiced by many of the right-wing Catholic organizations is the self-censorship practiced by reporters, editors and publishers. All know there is a line that has been drawn by the bishops that they are not to cross—and they rarely do. They are aware of the rules formulated by the bishops regarding how Church matters are to be reported—and nearly always follow them. They know they will be punished if they do not conform.

Indeed, the bishops have had far greater success in intimidating non-Catholics than in retaining their own faithful. This is not limited to the press. With 26 years in the population field, I can say from experience that the fear of retaliation by the Catholic Church has paralyzed the population movement. I have also found that the fear felt by many American politicians aware of the undemocratic activities of the Church has resulted in their silence on this issue.

The Roman Catholic Church is a political entity headquartered in Rome and controlled in Rome. Its teachings and policies are set in Rome. All of its employees work for and represent the interests of the headquarters in Rome. It has awesome political power in the U.S. and the world over. It has inviolable territory, diplomatic representation to governments around the world and its minions sit on international bodies of a purely secular nature. It has political interests, including security-survival interests which are in direct conflict with those of the United States Government and its people. But the image of the Catholic Church presented by the American press does not reflect these realities. We are led to believe that this institution is primarily religious in nature. On the contrary; numerous observers over the years, including scholar Paul Blanchard, have correctly described the Catholic Church as a political institution cloaked in religion. Little has changed. The Church and its Vatican are firstly a political institution, now desperately trying to survive.

Much distortion is possible because relevant information that would limit distortion is not collected in the first place, since the Church has succeeded in blocking its collection. For example, for the bishops to claim “we speak for 59 million Americans” alone gives the Church an enormous amount of political power to manipulate government policy. It is not possible to challenge their present count of 59 million, though the actual number of Catholics who consider themselves adherents of the Catholic faith and who are willing to give the bishops permission to speak for them in the political arena is undoubtedly but a fraction of 59 million. But when politicians hear the number 59 million, they listen intently. The result—a lot of political power.

These are but a few of the reasons Americans have such a distorted view of the Church. However, American priests, nuns and laymen have a much less distorted view; it is amply documented that they are leaving the Church in droves. The test of the image is in the polling. The image of a healthy, robust and expanding American Catholic Church is clearly wrong. American Catholics are not conforming to the extent that our perceptions tell us. We are affording the Church far more deference than it deserves.

Too Much Evidence to Ignore

American Catholics, like the rest of us, cannot ignore the steady barrage of evidence that their church is in an untenable position and that the pope and the Church, as Father McCormack phrased it, “bear a heavy burden of responsibility” for much of the misery, suffering and premature death we see around the world.

There are numerous examples: The cover story of the February 1994 issue of the Atlantic Monthly titled “The Coming Anarchy” by Robert Kaplan links anarchy around the world, including the U.S., to overpopulation. In a follow-up column in the New York Times, Anthony Lewis writes that overpopulation-induced environmental destruction will be “the national security issue of the early 21st century.” A Los Angeles Times News Service article titled, “Massive Famine Predicted Worldwide,” reports on a symposium of international agricultural experts who predict eight times the shortage of food worldwide, as now seen in Africa, by the year 2000.

A recent Reuters dispatch is headed, “U.N. report lists developing countries in danger of collapse,” naming eight. (Rwanda was the first to go.) The New York Times News Service reports: Pontifical Academy of Sciences recommends that couples have only two children to curb world population growth. A USA Today article begins, “The Catholic Church, long outspoken in its opposition to abortion, is engaging in a massive and unprecedented lobbying effort to stop passage of an abortion rights bill in Congress … which would prohibit states from restricting abortion.” (The bishops won—the bill is now dead.) A Los Angeles TimesNews Service article is titled, “Roman Catholic bishops declare their intent to fight any legislation that provides coverage for abortions” (including the Clinton health care plan, or any alternative covering abortion). A New York Times News Service article reports on a newly released Episcopal Church document that terms the Catholic attitude toward women “so insulting, so retrograde” that women should abandon Catholicism “for the sake of their own humanity.”

The New York Times reports that taxpayers save $4.40 for every public dollar spent to provide family planning (based on costs of baby’s first two years). A Wall Street Journal article reports on a University of California finding that every $1 spent on family planning services saves the state $11.20 later. The results of a Washington Post-ABC News poll in 1993 shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor the availability of abortion, and the percentages increased over 1992. A Reader’s Digest article titled, “A Continent’s Slow Suicide,” reports, “Now the African continent is sliding back to a precolonial stage.” The nightly TV news stories on Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia reveal that these conflicts are all related to overpopulation.

These hideous stories seem endless. Of course they have the same effects on Catholics as they do on non-Catholics. “The truth shall make you free” and this steady diet of information countering the Vatican’s position has emancipated Catholics from dogmas which have contributed to papal control. We have a distorted view of what American Catholics think. For decades, the Bishops have been telling us what Catholics think and most Catholics and non-Catholics alike have failed to question this arrangement. How did this arrangement come about and how is it maintained?

More importantly—how has the Vatican managed to subvert all serious efforts to deal with the overpopulation problem without the American public’s awareness of these covert operations? This is the subject of Chapters 14 and 15.

Australian bishop testifies on prevalence of child sex abuse in the church

From the Link: https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/australian-bishop-testifies-prevalence-child-sex-abuse-church

Dying of cancer, Bishop Emeritus Geoffrey Robinson appeared Aug. 24 before the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to testify to the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the church.

He painted a sad picture of a brave and lonely Sisyphus with his band of bishops in tow, pushing a boulder with a reasoned response to the crisis up the Vatican Hill, only to have it pushed back by popes and cardinals who had no idea about the issue and a blindness about the incapacity of canon law to deal with it.

“However great the faults of the Australian bishops have been over the last 30 years, it still remains true that the major obstacle to a better response from the church has been the Vatican,” Robinson told the commission. Most of the Roman Curia saw the problem as a “moral one: if a priest offends, he should repent; if he repents, he should be forgiven and restored to his position. … They basically saw the sin as a sexual one, and did not show great understanding of the abuse of power involved or the harm done to the victims.”

Robinson entered the seminary at 12-years-old, was ordained a priest, and became a canon lawyer and then auxiliary bishop of Sydney. In 1996, when revelations of clergy sexual abuse of children in Australia had reached a crescendo, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference appointed him to find a solution. In 2004, he resigned as auxiliary bishop of Sydney after concluding that the church’s response was still inadequate.

“I eventually came to the point where I felt that, with the thoughts that were running through my head, I could not continue to be a bishop of a church about which I had such profound reservations,” Robinson wrote in a 2008 book Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church. “I resigned my office as Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney and began to write this book, about the very foundations of power and sex within the church.”

He wrote books and went on lecture tours, calling for radical reforms within the church, and in the process lost and gained many friends.

He quickly came to the conclusion after his appointment by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference to draw up a protocol to deal with child sexual abuse in 1996, that canon law was so inadequate for cases of sexual abuse that it would be a sham to use it. “We would have to invent something of our own,” he told the Royal Commission.

Prior to 1983, when he was consulted by the Vatican about a new draft of the Code of Canon Law, he found the words “pontifical secret” stamped over the document. He complained that if he were to give a reasoned response, he needed to discuss it with colleagues. He was told: “Just don’t give it to the media.”

In 1996, Robinson devised a protocol called “Towards Healing,” a system that was “outside, and indeed contrary to canon law.” In the first draft, he required these crimes to be reported to the police as the police were not the media. Pope Paul VI’s instruction, Secreta Continere of 1974, imposes the pontifical secret over allegations of clergy sexual abuse of children and contains no exception for reporting to the police. The barrage of statements by senior Curia figures from 1984 to 2002 made it abundantly clear that bishops should not report these allegations to the police.

But that was not the only conflict that “Towards Healing” had with canon law. It had its own system of investigation, and clergy could be placed on permanent “administrative leave.” None of this complied with canon law.

In his perceptive notes of the meeting in the Vatican in April 2000 to discuss child sexual abuse, Robinson wrote that the members of the Roman Curia showed an “an overriding concern to preserve the legal structures already in place in the Church and not to make exceptions to them unless this was absolutely necessary.”

He told the Commission how Italian Archbishop Mario Pompedda told the delegates how they might get around canon law, but he did not want a law that he had to get around. He wanted one he could follow, but “they never came up with it.” Robinson came away from that meeting knowing that the Australian bishops had no choice but to continue to go it alone, irrespective of what the fall out might be.

The extent to which he and the other Australian bishops were prepared to do that is starkly illustrated in the minutes of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference of Nov. 28, 2002, where they resolved to disobey Pope John Paul II’s 2001 Motu Proprio, Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, which required all complaints of child sexual abuse to be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which would then instruct the bishop what to do. They would only refer those cases where there was no admission by the priest that the abuse had occurred. Robinson told the Commission that the purpose behind that was to avoid being told by Rome what to do with those priests who admitted the abuse. That decision was well justified given the figures presented to the United Nations by the Vatican that only one third of priests against whom credible allegations of child sexual abuse had been made, have been dismissed. The claim that the Vatican has a policy of zero tolerance is pure spin.

This defiance of canon law was never going to last. Patrick Parkinson, professor of law at Sydney University, appointed by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference to review “Towards Healing,” pointed out the problems of a local protocol that conflicted with canon law: priests permanently removed from the ministry simply appealed to Rome which ordered their reinstatement. The bishop had to comply or be sacked. Robinson told the Commission that “Towards Healing” was initially successful because a number of priests accepted that they could not continue to work as a priest, but “it later fell down because both sides changed.” Priests started to defend themselves with canon lawyers, and the victims went to civil lawyers.

Robinson was very critical of Pope John Paul II for a lack of leadership on this issue, and particularly his imposition in 1983 of a five-year limitation period that effectively meant that there could be no prosecution of priest paedophiles under canon law because their crimes had been “extinguished.” Prior to 1983, there was no limitation period for these crimes. After 1983, if a child was abused at the age of 7, and did not complain by the age of 12, there was no possibility of dismissing the priest under canon law.

Figures presented to the Commission indicate that in Australia, the limitation period meant that only 3 percent of accused priests could be dismissed, and that figure only increased to 19 percent with the extension of the period to 10 years from the 18th birthday of the victim in 2001. Robinson said the church has still not had the appropriate leadership on child sexual abuse from Pope Benedict XVI and not even from Pope Francis.

Robinson also criticized Australian Cardinal George Pell for refusing to join the other Australian bishops in adopting the “Towards Healing” protocol. Pell was party to the two-year consultations leading up to its adoption in November 1996, but, without reference to anyone, announced he was setting up his own system, the “Melbourne Response,” and then claimed he was the first in Australia to do something about clergy sexual abuse. Apart from accusing Pell of destroying a unified response from the Australian bishops, Robinson said he was an “ineffective bishop” for having lost the support of the majority of his priests who wished for him to be transferred somewhere else. Their wish was fulfilled. He is now in charge of the Vatican finances.

A reading of the many documents tendered to the Royal Commission provides even more evidence that the Vatican’s all but useless disciplinary system caused far more children to be abused than would otherwise have occurred. Robinson fought the good fight, but was ultimately defeated and resigned, exhausted.

In the end, the Australian bishops abandoned the courage they displayed under his leadership, and followed the lead of Pope Benedict XVI who, in his 2010 Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, ignored the Murphy Commission’s criticisms of canon law, and blamed the Irish bishops for failing to follow it. In submissions to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry and to the Royal Commission, the Australian bishops ignored what they knew of canon law’s failings, and blamed their predecessors for making “terrible mistakes” when their predecessors were demonstrably complying with canon law.

Australia has a peculiar cultural habit of creating heroes who struggle in vain, and are defeated — from the bushranger, Ned Kelly to the soldiers who were massacred at Gallipoli in the First World War. The Catholic church needs some heroes. Robinson, now terminally ill, is one of them.

This form is for organizations and individuals who are interested in co sponsoring this event in support of the Child Victims Act, a bill that would eliminate the statute of limitations for sex crimes committed against children.On June 5th at 11am we will be gathering near Cadman plaza park in Brooklyn on the North Lawn and at 12pm we will march across the Brooklyn bridge and end in front of City Hall park for a press conference where we will hear from survivors, and the legislators sponsoring this important bill.

If you would like your organization to be listed, please submit your contact info in the form below, we will be updating the Facebook event daily to include any groups that wish to participate.

This is a link to the official Facebook event, we urge you to share it with your followers and encourage as many people as possible to join this important and historic event on behalf of children’s safety everywhere.

If you have any questions about this event or about this form, please feel free to contact Chaim Levin, one of the organizers of this event at chaim@kolvoz.org or 917-932-5394

Do you or your organization want to be listed as a co- sponsor for this event?

It is time for politicians to make our Children their number 1 Priority. Join Assemblywoman Margaret Markey and Senator Brad Hoylman in taking a stance to end NY Statute of Limitations for Sexual Abuse claims.

Victims, Survivors, Advocates, Parents, Grandparents, Children and Activists Unite. We will start gathering at 11am on the cadman plaza park (north lawn),we will be giving out t-shirts and posters. The March across the Brooklyn bridge to city hall will start at 12pm. Please feel free to bring your own posters and signs as well.

Vinnie Nauheimer: Letter for People to send to Pennsylvania businesses standing against SOL Reform

Dear

If a fast food chain with retail stores across the country had employees that consistently raped, sodomized and molested children, wouldn’t you as a legislator vote to shut that chain down in a heartbeat? As a public servant it would be your sworn duty. Why then hesitation over the Catholic Church? Is it because the specter of religious persecution hangs over the outcome? The purpose of revising the Statute of Limitations Laws is neither to target Roman Catholicism nor any other religion. The purpose is to protect children.

The Catholic Church has played the religious persecution card in the United States for too many years. When the Clergy Abuse Crisis hit its flashpoint in 2002, the churches well-paid PR firms spun it out as church bashing. The preponderance of subsequent evidence showed the charges were not only true, but that there also existed a systemic church-wide policy of covering sexual abuse up. Fifteen years later, you have to look no farther than either Philadelphia or the Altoona-Johnstown diocese to understand the institutional policy of the RCC. The RCC has no incentive to release the shameful atrocities committed by their priests against children. The opportunity you have in front of you is to break that policy.

“Saint” Peter Damian

As the Statute of Limitations is up for review, in yet another state spurred by clerical abuse, the church is once again crying foul. What is foul is children being raped, sodomized and molested without fear of recrimination. It is heinous not foul! Jesus reserved his strongest language for two groups: those that would harm children and hypocrites. The Ecumenical Council of Elvira which convened in 312AD contains the first written penalties to be applied to priests who sexually abused children. In the Eleventh Century, St. Peter Damian wrote “The Book of Gomorrah” dealing with the out of control pedophilia and pederasty in the priesthood. The Roman Catholic Church has a well-documented historical record of priests abusing children that goes back seventeen-hundred-years and it is up to you to help put an end to it.

You will not put the church out of business; they’ve been around for 2,000 years. A 2012 article from the Economist estimates that the church in the United States receives 13 billion dollars a year just in tax free pew donations. They’re also the largest single property owner in the United States so they’re not going out of business anytime soon. The Los Angeles Archdiocese paid out half a billion in clergy abuse settlements while at the same time building a 300 million dollar cathedral and it’s still thriving. Please don’t buy into their “poor me” nonsense.

Lastly, don’t let them make you complicit in their criminal enterprise. The only way to end this despicable criminal activity is to hold them accountable. Any person who holds himself a good Catholic or a good Christian knows that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, in cases of child abuse, is acting contrary to God’s Law, their own Canon Law and Civil Law. Any campaign money derived from the Catholic Church to prevent the Statute of Limitations from being revised is blood money stained with the blood of thousands of survivors of clerical abuse who are left with no redress to right the egregious wrongs done to them. Money is all the church has to offer because they can no longer deliver a voting bloc. Evidence the dismal failure of the concerted all-out bishop’s effort in 2012 to defeat Obama. They failed miserably. Why, because they are paper tigers incapable of delivering their own sermons.

The trauma of child abuse is devastating. The human mind does not process abuse for years and if the victim doesn’t commit suicide prior to coming to grips with it, the tragedy is compounded when he or she realizes they have no recourse because of antiquated SOL laws. Please vote to pass the revised Statute of Limitations Bill. By doing so, you are voting for both the protection and future of our children.
Sincerely

“Saint” Peter Damian’s admonishing against priest pedophiles and those who cover up for them in 1049.

Due to the global ongoing sexual abuse and cover-up by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, it is safe to assume that the only part of Crimen Sollicitationis that was adhered to was the demand for secrecy. Up until 2002 almost every settlement involving sexual abuse by a priest came with an enforceable gag order on the victim. The victims were silenced while most offending priests were moved to new hunting grounds.

The logical question to ask is, “Cui Bono,” who benefits? Who benefits from the silence? It could be argued that the priest and his accuser benefit from the silence. However, since there were no remedies for the care, compensation or treatment of the victim, it is hard to see how victims benefited from Crimen instruction. There has never been any proof whatsoever of rampant false charges being brought against innocent priests. Therefore innocent priests haven’t benefited. So who are the chief beneficiaries of the documentCrimen Sollicitationis? The sexually abusive priest and the Roman Catholic Church are the only beneficiaries.

Therefore, I accuse!

Lest Crimen sidetrack us, the salient points are:
1. The document was sent from the International Headquarters.
2. The document was sent out globally.
3. The document was sent in secrecy.
4. The document demanded secrecy.
5. The penalty for violating secrecy is the harshest penalty the church can mete out: excommunication.
6. It labels the sexual abuse of children as “The Worst Crime” thereby admitting to the world the Vatican’s complete understanding of the vile nature of the act of sexually abusing children.

By their own hand they are condemned.

In the 28 countries we know about, the rape, sodomization, and molestation of children are publicly documented. Why then hasn’t Interpol gotten involved? Interpol states that the protection of children is one of their primary goals. This is the first paragraph taken from Interpol’s page on children:

Crimes against children

Children are the most vulnerable individuals in our society; they are also the most precious commodity that the world has and have a right to be protected from all forms of abuse. INTERPOL as an organization is also committed to eradicating the sexual abuse of children and has passed several resolutions making crimes against children one of International policing top priorities.5

They tell us that, not preventing, but eradicating (wiping out) sexual abuse is one of their top priorities. How can the sexual abuse of children be a top priority when the chief global culprit, the Roman Catholic Church has not been formerly accused by either the UN or Interpol?

I accuse!

The evidence is abundant for any who would make even a cursory examination of the facts. The Dallas Morning News did an entire series on the international scope of both clergy sexual abuse and its cover-up. Central to the series was the theme of hierarchy moving predator priests internationally in order to save them from being tried for crimes committed or to provide new hunting grounds or both.6

The facts accuse!

The need to protect children around the world is a global priority of United Nations. The U.N. through its UNICEF organization has put together “The Convention on the Rights of the Child.” Here are articles nineteen and thirty-four from that convention, which address the sexual abuse of children.

Article 19

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

Article 34

States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:

The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;

The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;

The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.7

I accuse the RCC of violating the Convention on the Rights of the Child!

The Holy See, which could be a member of the United Nations by virtue of the fact that the Vatican is a city-state, has elected not to become a member of the UN. Rather it has been granted the nomenclature of permanent observer. This means that they enjoy the full rights of every sovereign member except the right to vote. In this way they can lobby for whatever they desire and not have to go on record as voting for or against an issue.

They chose to not to support “The Convention on the Rights of the Child.” The Holy See declared that “the application of the Convention should be compatible in practice with the particular nature of the Vatican City State and of the sources of its objective law.” in a statement issued when they declined to be a signatory. To date, all members but two have ratified the Convention.8

The United Nations through Interpol, its international police agency, and UNICEF, their children’s agency recognize the need to police and prevent the sexual abuse of children throughout the world. They state this is a top priority. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been widely accepted by governments around the world, seeks to end the sexual abuse of children. Why then have the UN, UNICEF, and Interpol chosen to totally ignore the most public, international series of sex crimes and cover-ups against children running from the twentieth into the twenty-first century?

I accuse!

“Saint” Peter Damian

Having established that the sexual abuse of children is accepted by the RCC as being a criminal act, it follows that aiding and abetting criminals is also a crime. The international criminal activity of aiding and abetting sexual predators by the RCC is well documented. The award winning newspaper The Dallas Morning News did an excellent series of articles dealing with the international flight of pedophile priests to escape prosecution entitled Runaway Priests. The following are excerpts from some of their articles as listed on the website Bishop-accountability.org.

Dr. Navarro-Valls (chief spokesperson for the pope) previously declined to comment on The News’ investigation, which found more than 200 accused priests, brothers and other Catholic workers hiding across international borders and living in unsuspecting communities, often with the church’s support. About 30 of the men were wanted by law enforcement in another country.9

Where is Interpol? Where is the outcry from UNICEF?

Bishop Thomas V. Daily of the Diocese of Brooklyn, in an exchange of correspondence with a Venezuelan bishop in 1991 about allegations against Father Diaz, praised the priest’s work in his diocese even as a 60-count indictment was pending against him in Queens on child sexual abuse charges. Later that year, after pleading guilty to three counts of sexual abuse in the case, Father Diaz was deported to Venezuela, where the pattern of victimizing young boys continued unabated.

And so it went throughout Father Diaz’s ministry. Moving from country to country, from parish to parish, from victim to victim, he was often held unaccountable by church officials and was treated delicately by some law enforcement authorities, the interviews and documents show.10

How can the above be anything but an international criminal conspiracy?

His order, the Salesians of Don Bosco, has long moved priests accused of sexual abuse from country to country, away from law enforcement and victims. Indeed, it is how many others in the Catholic Church have dealt with the problem, a yearlong Dallas Morning News investigation has found.11

The crimes committed by the hierarchy of the RCC against the children of the world have been documented many times in many countries. In each country from Poland, to Ireland, to the United States around and down to Australia, the story is the same. Priests who commit criminal acts of sexual abuse against children are shuffled from country to country with no regard for either local or international law. These priests are shuffled by a complicit hierarchy who are guilty of aiding and abetting criminals. Once transferred, these priests are free to prey upon a fresh population of unsuspecting families who revere the priest as god’s representative on earth.

Cardinal George Pell

In 2002 Pope John Paul II stated before the world, “There is no room in the priesthood for those who sexually abuse children.”12 But nothing was done; priests were still being shuffled and names of priestly perpetrators are still a closely guarded secret. In April of 2008, while on the plane over to the United States, Benedict XVI said, “I am deeply ashamed” 13 while referring to the Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal. On July 19, 2008, in Australia, he said,

“I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops, and to work together with them in combating this evil. Victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.”14

“And those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice!” Strong words from the pope! The pope is an honorable man; bishops and cardinals are all honorable men and they speak well. Yet nothing was said about revoking Crimen Sollicitationis. Did he forget that as Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001, he reaffirmed its validity? He can say one thing publicly, but as long as he still binds everyone with knowledge of clergy abuse to the absolute law of secrecy under the chapter 11, “ a secret of the Holy Office,15” the pope is only mouthing words. As long as Cardinals, Law, Mahony, George, Egan and Levada remain in office, he is only mouthing words. As long as bishops and the leaders of religious orders who shuffled pedophiles from country to country remain in the priesthood, the pope is only mouthing words. The pope is the only one who can start bringing those responsible for these evils to justice!

It is time to put an end to the global scourge of clerical child abuse and put these criminal priests behind bars along with the members of the hierarchy who have purposefully aided them. (It seems that Pope Benedict agrees with me.) These crimes are a violation of God’s law, Church law, Civil law, and International law (all covered in this treatise). As proven in the United States, the only thing that will change the way the RCC harbors their criminals is a courtroom. Interpol must aid in the capture of these international child abusing fugitives and the U.N. must bring charges against the Vatican in the World Court. Only the credible threat of listing the Vatican as a criminal organization, making them stand trial for the abuse of tens of thousands of children and covering-up for thousands of priests will force the much needed changes while making the world a safer place for children. Interpol and the UN had every right to get involved in the clergy abuse scandal because it violates their conventions. Now both the UN and Interpol have an invitation to get involved straight from the pope’s mouth. Pope Benedict XVI has just asked for “aid and assistance” followed up by “those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.” The Vicar of Christ on earth is asking for help in bringing to justice to those who committed and helped in crimes of sexual abuse against children. What greater invitation can be made?

Note 1. To any lawyers who may represent or have represented survivors of sexual abuse. Crimen Sollicitationis means “crime of solicitation” which refers to crimes of the confessional. Reading this text is extremely difficult because everything up until Title V is about soliciting in the confessional. Title V paragraph 72 states: “Those things that have been stated concerning the crime of solicitation up to this point are also valid, changing only those things necessary to be changed by their very nature, for the worst crime,” TakeCrimen Sollicitationis (English version) and put it in a Word document. Then do a find/replace with find Solicitation and replace it with child abuse. You will be amazed at how it clarifies the document giving you a clearer understanding of what Crimen Sollicitationis says about the clergy abuse of children.

About the author: Vinnie Nauheimer has written extensively on the subject of clerical abuse. He has written two books on the subject of clergy abuse. One of poetry “Silent Screams” and one comprised of selected letters sent over an eight year period on the subject of clergy abuse called “Epistles on Clergy Abuse.” His art, poetry and writing can be found on websites around the world. Though they don’t issue a degree in Clergy Abuse, Mr. Nauheimer successfully survived advanced classes from the School of Intimidation and Slander sponsored by the NY Archdiocese. Both his and his family’s degree of pain were acknowledged by a Grand Jury probing the issue of clergy abuse. His goals are the same as those stated by Pope Benedict XVI in Australia on July 19, 2008: “Victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.”

From the Link: http://catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/RC_clericalpedophilia.html

“73. To have the worst crime, for the penal effects, one must do the equivalent of the following: any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality).

74. Against accused clerics for these crimes, if they are exempt religious, and unless there takes place at the same time the crime of solicitation, even the regular superior can proceed, according to the holy canons and their proper constitutions, either in an administrative or a judicial manner. However, they must communicate the judicial decision pronounced as well as the administrative decision in the more serious cases to the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office.4

The wording of Title V is extremely important as it confirms the Vatican’s own knowledge and acceptance of the fact that the sexual abuse of children, regardless of sex, is a crime. The Vatican did not use the words evil, sinful, offensive, lapse of judgment, moment of weakness or illness. They used the word “crime” which is the only word that can adequately describe the act of a priest preying on a child for his own sexual gratification. Therefore, by stating that “the sexual abuse of children is a crime,” the Vatican tacitly acknowledges before God and man that priests who commit the crime of having sex with children, are in fact criminals! They also demand that these criminal acts be reported to their international headquarters, the Vatican.

Criminals commit crimes. Sex with children is a crime under both canon and civil law. Therefore, there can be no doubt that priests who commit the crime of sexual abuse with children are criminals! Ipso facto, those who protect these criminals are themselves guilty of aiding and abetting criminals. The Vatican has known for centuries that the sexual abuse of children is a criminal offense. In that, they are in total agreement with the secular law of just about every country on earth.”

Not only is the sexual abuse of children considered a crime by the Vatican, but to add emphasis to the matter, the Vatican chose to label it “The Worst Crime.” Of all the adjectives that are available to describe a crime, the Vatican chose to call the sexual abuse of children “The Worst.” What does that make the men who allow these sexual predators ply their trade unabated? What does this do to the commonly used hierarchal defense, “I didn’t know?” What does it say about the hundreds of bishops in 28 known countries around the world who failed to live up to the Vatican’s standards? What does it say about a Vatican that tolerated these failures?

Crimen Sollicitationis directs the bishops to prosecute crimes of child sexual abuse? Failing to do so makes them all scofflaws! They scoffed at every indecency perpetrated on the bodies of children around the world. Neither bishops nor the Vatican can claim ignorance of the law anymore! Whether it was an internal or external law, they failed to prosecute the rapists, sodomizers and molesters in their midst; by their own account, the criminal element.

The English Translation of the Crimen Sollicitationis

In a document addressed to “all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and other diocesan ordinaries”, the Vatican gives instructions on the “manner of proceeding in cases of solicitations”:

The text, it adds, is to be “diligently stored in the secret archives… as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries”.

Some excerpts follow:

The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent, whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in a place] other than that [usually] designated for the hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession…

[The object of this temptation] is to solicit or provoke [the penitent] toward impure and obscene matters, whether by words or signs or nods of the head, whether by touch or by writing whether then or after [the note has been read] or whether he has had with [that penitent] prohibited and improper speech or activity with reckless daring…

The Ordinary of the place in these cases is the judge even for regulars [religious], even though exempt. It is indeed strictly prohibited for their superiors to interpose themselves in cases pertaining to the Holy Office.

However, having safeguarded the right of the Ordinary, there is nothing to prevent superiors themselves, if by chance they have discovered [one of their] subjects delinquent in the administration of the sacrament of Penance, from being able and having the obligation of being diligently watchful over those same persons, and, even having administered salutary penances, to admonish and correct, and, if the case demands it, to remove him from some ministry.

They will also be able to transfer him to another [assignment], unless the Ordinary of the place has forbidden it because he has already accepted the denunciation and has begun the inquisition.

Although, as a rule, a single judge, by reason of its secrecy, is prescribed for cases of this type, it is not forbidden, however, for the Ordinary in the more difficult cases to approve one or two assessors and counsellors, selected from the synodal judges; or even to three judges, likewise chosen from the synodal judges, to hand over the case to the judges to be handled with the mandate of proceeding collegially…

Minor helpers are to be used for nothing unless it is absolutely necessary; and these are to be chosen, in so far as possible, from the priestly order; always, however, they are to be proved faithfulness and mature without exception.

Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence, each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest secret… under the penalty of excommunication.

The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers of those denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses.

First knowledge of the crime

Since the crime of solicitation takes place in rather rare decisions, lest it remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriments to souls, it was necessary for the one person, as for many persons, conscious of that [act of solicitation], namely, the solicited penitent, to be compelled to reveal it through a denunciation imposed by positive law. Therefore:

The penitent must denounce the accused priest of the delict of solicitation in confession within a month to the Ordinary of the place or to the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office; and the confessor must, burdened seriously in conscience, to warn the penitent of this duty.

The faithful, however, who knowingly have disregarded the obligation to denounce the person by whom he was solicited, within a month, falls into an excommunication, not to be absolved unless after he has satisfies the obligation or has promised seriously that he would do so.

The duty of denunciation is a personal one and is to be fulfilled regularly by the person himself who has been solicited.

Anonymous denunciations generally must be rejected. However, they can have supportive force or give the occasion for further investigations, if the particular circumstances of the matters involved render an accusation probable.

The obligation of denunciation on the part of the solicited penitent does not cease because of a spontaneous confession by the soliciting confessor done by chance, nor because of his being transferred, promoted, condemned, or presumably reformed and other reasons of the same kind. It ceases, however, at his death.

Before [the person making the denunciation] is dismissed, there should be presented to him, as above, an oath of observing the secret, threatening him, if there is a need, with an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary or to the Holy See.

The process

If two witnesses cannot be found where each individual knows both the denounced and the denouncer, or if they cannot be interrogated at the same time without the danger of scandal or without detriment to the good name concerning him, then arrangements to be made, so that two persons, by means of a divided [testimony], namely, interrogate two witnesses only about the denounced and another two only about the individual denouncers.

In this case, however, it will be necessary to inquire elsewhere as to whether hatred, enmity or any other human disaffection against the denunciated [priest] was the case.

If it is evident that the denunciation totally lacks a foundation, [the priest] should order this to be declared in the Acts, and the documents of the accusation should be destroyed.

If the indications of the crime are vague and indeterminate or uncertain, he should order that the Acts be put into the archives, to be taken up again if something else happens in the future.

If, however, there are indications of a crime serious enough but not yet sufficient to institute an accusatorial process, he should order that the accused be admonished according to the different [types of] cases the first or second [time?], paternally, seriously or most seriously, adding, if necessary, an explicit threat of the trial process, should some other new accusation is laid upon [the accused] meanwhile, a check should be kept on the morale of the accused.

Penalties

Those who are in danger of falling back [into their former ways], and therefore of becoming greater recidivists should be submitted to particular vigilance.

As often as, in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, it seems necessary for the amendment of the delinquent, for the removal of the near occasion [of soliciting in the future], or for the prevention of scandal or reparation for it, there should be added a prescription for a prohibition of remaining in a certain place.

Official communications

Whenever an Ordinary immediately accepts a denunciation of the crime of solicitation, he should not omit telling this to the Holy Office. And if by chance he treats of a priest whether secular or religious having residence in another territory, he should transmit at the same time, an authentic copy of the denunciation itself.

Any Ordinary who has proceeded correctly against some priest who is soliciting should not omit to informing the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office, and, if it is a matter in which a religious is involved, also the General Superior concerning the outcome of the case.

If any priests condemned of the crime of solicitation, or even only admonished, should transfer his residence to another territory, [one] Ordinary should immediately warn the [other] Ordinary of the things that preceded that person and of his juridical status.

If any priests suspended in a case of solicitation from hearing sacramental confessions but not from sacred preaching happens to go to another territory to preach, the Ordinary of this territory should be reminded by the prelate or the accused, whether secular or religious, that he cannot be utilised for hearing sacramental confessions.

All these official communications shall always be made under the secret of the Holy Office; and, since they concern the common good of the church to the greatest degree, the precept of doing these things obliges under serious sin [sub gravi].

From the audience of the Holy Father, 16 March 1962

Our Most Holy Father John XXIII, in an audience granted to the most eminent Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office on 16 March 1962, deigned to approve and confirm this instruction, ordering upon those to whom it pertains to keep and observe it in the minutest detail.

At Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation, 16 March 1962.

Place of the seal

A Cardinal Ottaviani

Appendix

The formula for taking an oath to exercise one’s office faithfully and to observe the secret of the Holy Office

I promise sacredly, vow and swear, to observe inviolably the secret in all matters and details which will take place in exercising the aforesaid duty.

Tim Minchin – Pope Song with Lyrics

Fuck the motherfucker
Fuck the motherfucker
Fuck the motherfucker
He’s a fucking motherfucker

Fuck the motherfucker
Fuck the fucking fucker
Fuck the motherfucker
He’s a total fucking fucker

Fuck the motherfucker
Fuck the motherfucker
Fuck the motherfucker
Fucking fuck the motherfucker

Fuck the motherfucker
Fuck the motherfucking Pope.

Fuck the motherfucker
And fuck you, motherfucker
If you think that motherfucker is sacred
If you cover for another motherfucker
Who’s a kiddie fucker
Fuck you, you’re no better
Than the motherfucking rapist

And if you don’t like the swearing
That this motherfucker forced from me
And reckon it shows moral
Or intellectual paucity
Then fuck you, motherfucker
This is language one employs
When one is fucking cross
About fuckers fucking boys

I don’t give a fuck if calling
The Pope a motherfucker
Means you unthinkingly brand me
An unthinking apostate

This has nowt to do with other
Fucking Godly motherfuckers
I’m not interested now
In fucking scriptural debate

There are other fucking songs
And there are other fucking ways
I’ll be a religious apologist
On other fucking days

And the fact remains if you protect
A single kiddie fucker
The Pope, or Prince or plumber
You’re a fucking motherfucker

You see I don’t give a fuck about
What any other fucker
Believes about Jesus
And his motherfucking mother

I’ve no problem with the spiritual beliefs
Of all these fuckers
While those beliefs don’t impact
On the happiness of others

But if you build your Church on claims
Of fucking moral authority
And with threats of Hell impose it
On others in society

Then you, you motherfuckers
Can expect some fucking wrath
When it turns out you’ve been fucking us
In our motherfucking asses

So fuck the motherfucker
And fuck you, motherfucker
If you’re still a motherfucking Papist
If he covered for a single motherfucker
Who’s a kiddie fucker
Fuck the motherfucker
He’s as evil as the rapist

And if you look into your motherfucking heart
And tell me true
If this motherfucking stupid fucking
Song offended you
With its filthy fucking language
And its fucking disrespect
If it made you feel angry
Go ahead and write a letter
But if you find me more offensive
Than the fucking possibility
That the Pope protected priests
While they were getting fucking fiddly
Then listen to me motherfucker
This here is a fact:
You are just as morally misguided
As that motherfucking, power hungry
Self-aggrandised bigot
In the stupid fucking hat.

Honestly? I could give two flying shits less, what you scumbag, pedophile loving, pew polishing, demonic shit stains on the underwear of humanity of the Unholy Roman Catholic Cult say, or whether YOU like what I am doing here or not. And I am DAMN SURE YOU are not going to like what I am going to say in this posting, but again, I could give two flying shits less if YOU do or not.

Plain and simple, rabid dogs deserve more mercy than any of you shit stain scumbags of this cult of pedophiles. A rabid dog does NOT know what it is doing. But all your disgusting, demonic, scumbag Pedophile Pimps do. All of you do. Each and every one of you low-life, scumbag pedophiles? Each and every one of your Pedophile Pimps? Each and every one of you retarded, brain-dead, brain-washed, pieces of shit pew polishers who defend them?

ARE ALL DESERVING OF DEATH, AND A DEATH THAT WILL INCLUDE YOU SCUMBAGS BEING TORTURED WITH YOUR OWN TOOLS OF YOUR INQUISITIONS, BEFORE WE CUT YOUR FUCKING HEADS OFF, PUT THEM ON PIKES IN FRONT OF YOUR VATICAN AND YOUR CHURCHES WITH THE WARNING THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ANY OF YOU SCUM WHO MESS WITH OUR CHILDREN.

I agree with your Saint Peter Damian when he said the following all the way back in 1049:

“Saint” Peter Damian

“Listen, you do-nothing superiors of clerics and priests. Listen, and even though you feel sure of yourselves, tremble at the thought that you are partners in the guilt of others; those, I mean, who wink at the sins of their subjects that need correction and who by ill-considered silence allow them license to sin. Listen, I say, and be shrewd enough to understand that all of you alike are deserving of death, that is, not only those who do such things, but also they who approve those who practice them.”

Letter 31, the Book of Gomorrah [Liber Gomorrhianus], containing the most extensive treatment and condemnation by any Church Father of clerical pederasty

YOU ALL CALL YOURSELVES THE ONE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS, THE ONE HE OFFICIALLY STARTED. YOU CALL YOURSELVES THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THEN WITH ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE TO CHILDREN AND TEENS? RAPING THEM? BRUTALIZING THEM? BEATING THEM? ENSLAVING THEM? USING THEM AS MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS INCLUDING FORCED STERILIZATIONS AND ABORTIONS? AND EVEN MURDERING THEM? THEN YOU GOT THE UNMITIGATED BALLS TO STATE TO ALL OF US HOW YOU ARE THE PROTECTORS AND DEFENDERS OF CHILDREN BECAUSE OF YOUR STANCE AGAINST ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTIVES?

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TRYING TO FOOL OR CON?

THEN? YOU FUCKING ATTACK US? YOU INSULT US? YOU DENIGRATE US? YOU CALL US THE LIARS, THE GOLD DIGGERS OUT LOOKING FOR A PAYDAY?

OR BECAUSE WE SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE CRIMES…NOT THE SINS….COMMITTED AGAINST US, HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF US? HELL MILLIONS OF US ALL THROUGH THE HISTORY OF YOUR DAMNABLE CULT? YOU DARE CALL US ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTS AND HATERS OUT TO DESTROY YOUR CHURCH?

Bill “Pig Face” Donohue, degenerate leader of the Catholic League

OR SHIT STAINS LIKE BILL PIG FACE DONOHUE OF THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE SAYS BECAUSE WE DID NOT PUNCH OUR RAPISTS IN THE FACE, THAT MEANS WE WANTED IT, WE ENJOYED IT AND WE ARE HOMOSEXUALS BECAUSE OF IT?

OR THAT WE SEDUCED OUR RAPISTS?

OR ALL THE OTHER EVIL, DISGUSTING, SHITTY THINGS YOU SAY AGAINST US?

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU!!! HOW FUCKING DARE YOU ATTACK US AND DEFEND YOUR CRIMINALS? HOW FUCKING DARE YOU DO THIS TO US? WHO SUFFERED INCREDIBLE HORRORS, PAIN AND SUFFERING BECAUSE YOUR SHIT STAIN PRIESTS, BROTHERS, NUNS AND SISTERS FUCKED US, RAPED US, TORTURED US, BEAT US, BRUTALIZED US AND MURDERED US!!!!

WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? WHY I KNOW WHO THE FUCK YOU ARE.

YOU ARE SCUM, YOU ARE FUCKING DEMONS IN HUMAN FLESH, YOU ARE THE LOWEST FORM OF HUMAN LIFE ON THE EARTH, YOU DESERVE NO RIGHTS, YOU DESERVE NO MERCY, YOU DESERVE NO COMPASSION, YOU DESERVE NOTHING BUT FUCKING DEATH!!

PLAIN AND SIMPLE, YOU GODDAMN PEDOPHILE PIMPS, YOU POPE FRANCIS, YOU POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI, YOU PEDOPHILE CARDINALS, BISHOPS AND ARCHBISHOPS, YOU PEDOPHILE PRIESTS, BROTHERS, NUNS AND SISTERS AND ALL OF YOU SCUMBAG PEW POLISHERS WHO STAND UP AND DEFEND THEM AND ATTACK US? ARE FUCKING DESERVING OF DEATH, JUST LIKE YOUR SAINT PETER DAMIAN PROCLAIMED IN 1049.

SO FUCK YOU ALL.

OH AND I TRULY WISH YOU ASSHOLE, SCUMBAG, PEDOPHILE LOVING AND DEFENDING SHITSTAIN ROMAN CATHOLIC PEW POLISHERS WHO SPEW YOUR SHIT TO ME, WHO THREATEN ME WITH DEATH? WHO SAY I SHOULD BE RAPED? WHO SAY I AND MY SONS SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH FOR SPEAKING OUT?

WELL I FUCKING WISH, I REALLY WISH, WITH ALL OF MY HEART AND SOUL, WITH ALL OF MY BEING, YOU WOULD HAVE THE BALLS TO SAY YOUR SHIT TO MY FACE, IN PERSON, BECAUSE FUCKING TRUST ME IF YOU DID?

YOU WOULD FIND OUT IF YOUR GOD AND JESUS ARE REAL, CAUSE I WOULD HAVE NO FUCKING PROBLEM….IN BEATING YOU TO DEATH WITH MY FISTS AND FEET RIGHT ON THE SPOT THE MOMENT YOU OPEN YOUR PEDOPHILE LOVING OUTHOUSE PIEHOLES TO ME.

From the Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3590598/child-abuse-monk-arrested-Kosovo-living-fleeing.html

Brother Laurence Soper has been arrested in Kosovo after five years on the run

A Catholic monk wanted over child sex abuse allegations has been arrested in Kosovo after five years on the run.

Laurence Soper went into hiding after being investigated for alleged sex offences at Catholic Ealing Abbey in London from 1991 to 2000.

Following allegations by a former pupil, Soper was arrested in Rome and questioned by appointment by the Metropolitan Police in September 2010.

However, investigators allowed him to retain his passport and did not take a picture, asking him through his solicitor to return to London from Italy where he worked.

Instead, after leaving St Anselmo Church on March 4, 2011, apparently to fly to Heathrow, Soper skipped bail and vanished.

He has now been apprehended in Pec, Kosovo after a European Arrest Warrant was issued for him in 2012.

The extradition process to return him to the UK is reportedly underway.

A Met Police spokesman said: ‘We are aware of the arrest and we are liaising with the relevant authorities’.

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said: ‘Our Embassy is providing assistance following the arrest of a British National in Peja, Kosovo on Wednesday 11 May.’

According to Albanian news outlet Albeu, Soper lived in Pec for years under the name Andrew Insajderit.

‘He lived in a house of a friend of mine. I have spoken and met with him several times. He said he was writing a book,’ a resident told the outlet.

Having worked for nearly 30 years at St Benedict’s, a £12,000-a-year private school attached to the Abbey, now-expelled monk Soper quit Britain in 2001 for Rome to become treasurer at the Benedictine Order’s headquarters at St Anselmo.

A source close to the investigation said in 2012: ‘He knew he was about to be charged.’